Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.

I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart. Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this? Circa 1900? The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.Sorry I don't know who Fr. Patrick Reardon is supposed to be in this discussion. is he a prominent RC priest?

Yes, many do. Even non-Western Orthodox, such as Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, do.

I am surprised to read this. I doubt "many" Orthodox have anything to do with the Sacred heart. Have you read the correspondence between Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and the Eastern Catholic metr. Andrii Sheptytsky about this? Circa 1900? The Orthodox metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky asks why Sheptytsky does not also introduce the "Sacred Liver" also.Sorry I don't know who Fr. Patrick Reardon is supposed to be in this discussion. is he a prominent RC priest?

No, he's a prominent American EO priest. I'll have to ask him about this, as I've never seen or heard of his devotion to the "Sacred Heart."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^Funny thing that Fr. Reardon should be brought up. In his discussion (brief as it was)on the Western Rite that he gave at the Antiochian Convention back in July, this is exactly one of the things that he thought should be excised from the Western Rite. He says that the Western Rite has too many festivals like the Sacred Heart, Trinity, Christ the King, Corpus Christi, Seven Dolours of Mary, etc. which celebrate not events in the course of salvation through Christ's work here on Earth, but ideas. He says that needs to go. And he's right.

Here is the quote I was looking for in the letters of Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky:

"Several times at the outset of his activity in the See of Volyn", VladikaAnthony exchanged correspondence with the …Metropolitam of Lvov (Lviv), Count Andrei Sheptytsky. In one of his letters, the …Metropolitan wrote that he was thenoccupied with the introduction of veneration to the "Sacred Heart of Jesus"among the Galicians…When Vladika took exception to this Catholic devotion, the…metropolitan asked: "Really, how can one possibly object to the veneration ofthe Sacred Heart, when our Lord Jesus Christ suffered for us with His heart ,and when His heart suffered most of all, throbbing with pain?" To this Vladikareplied that during Christ's sufferings, as is well know, He experienced muchpain, not only in his heart, but in other internal organs of His body, as forexample, the liver, the kidneys, etc. It would then follow that one couldvenerate these other internal organs as well …To this remark there was noresponse."

Orthodox Life, No. 4, 1979. P. 26.

Orthodox usually claim that the veneration of the Sacred Heart borders on cyrpto-Nestorianism. Please note that the 5thEcumenical Council conveys that in our veneration of Christ we should not separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity as a whole and not to parts of His Being. Nestorianism it is believed overemphasizes the humanity of Christ.

Ialmisry, he mentioned this during the Q&A after his recent talk at the Antiochian Convention. I should clarify that perhaps it wasn't the full devotion, but he said he "invokes" the Sacred Heart between decades of the Rosary (which he said he prays daily).

Scamandrius, at this same talk, he brought up the feasts you mentioned, but it's an overall problem he has with feasts that celebrate non-events/concepts, which he is quick to point out the Eastern Rite has as well. It's not a Western peculiarity, though there seem to be more of them.

I for one hope they all stay in place. They are beautiful and life-giving.

Ialmisry, he mentioned this during the Q&A after his recent talk at the Antiochian Convention. I should clarify that perhaps it wasn't the full devotion, but he said he "invokes" the Sacred Heart between decades of the Rosary (which he said he prays daily).

Scamandrius, at this same talk, he brought up the feasts you mentioned, but it's an overall problem he has with feasts that celebrate non-events/concepts, which he is quick to point out the Eastern Rite has as well. It's not a Western peculiarity, though there seem to be more of them.

I'm just watching our flock, watching out for western wolves, in their own skins or eastern ones.

Forget for the moment a comparison with the Orthodox of the East. Compare these cults to the Church in the West when it confessed the Orthodox Faith. Do we see this obsession with "visionaries," this fascination with body parts and gore, this mutliplication of cults, this dogmatization of the Theotokos on her own before the 11th century in the West?

« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 06:34:27 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.

Almost makes the criticism of the WRO true.

I should clarify, I'm mainly thinking of feasts like Trinity Sunday, which actually goes back very far in the Western experience. I've not actually ever seen a Western Rite parish celebrate the Sacred Heart feast, I don't know anyone that personally practices the devotion, and I've not seen or heard of any WRO parishes that celebrate Seven Dolours of Mary.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par. 3)

Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.

To be fair to everyone, if we're specifically talking about Orthodox use of the Sacred Heart, we mustn't jump to the conclusion that however Roman Catholics might understand and use the devotion, it is identical to how Orthodox use and understand it.

Do your homework, track down the texts that are actually used, the understanding of its role and purpose, etc.

I should clarify, I'm mainly thinking of feasts like Trinity Sunday, which actually goes back very far in the Western experience. I've not actually ever seen a Western Rite parish celebrate the Sacred Heart feast, I don't know anyone that personally practices the devotion, and I've not seen or heard of any WRO parishes that celebrate Seven Dolours of Mary.

yes, neither have I.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 06:50:23 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.

yes, send it. I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isa, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Fr. Edward Hughes's thoughtful analysis of the Sacred Heart devotion, if you're able to track it down somewhere. I wonder, is there a limit to private message length? If not, I could copy it to you, if you're interested. He makes a very good case for it, outside of any macabre or gory caricatures that are associated with it.

yes, send it. I just ask that you allow me to post it publicly.

Will do, and I have no problem with you posting portions. I'd post the whole thing if I could, but I believe there are restrictions against that...

I've heard many arguments against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. I was just wondering if the devotion has found its way into Orthodox Western Rite devotion. I would love to hear Western Rite Orthodox arguments in favor of the devotion if there are any.

Sleeper, I'm going to assume you are in the Western Rite. If not then forgive me but if so, do you make it a practice to say the devotion to the Sacred Heart?

I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.

But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?

No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've heard many arguments against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. I was just wondering if the devotion has found its way into Orthodox Western Rite devotion. I would love to hear Western Rite Orthodox arguments in favor of the devotion if there are any.

Sleeper, I'm going to assume you are in the Western Rite. If not then forgive me but if so, do you make it a practice to say the devotion to the Sacred Heart?

The arguments you hear, quite honestly, are mostly good ones, but they are against something that I don't think you'll find amongst WRO. Primarily the emotionalism and hyper-sentimentalism of what became the Margaret Mary-influenced popular piety-style devotion.

The lengthy article by Fr. Edward Hughes is adamantly opposed to this style of devotion, which he aptly calls "abominable mush" and with his characteristic balance goes one to say, "As conceived by the Roman Church, this devotion is commendable. It encourages fervor and love of God, true repentance, and the desire to serve. As popularly conceived, however, it only perpetuates false doctrine and spirituality and destroys true, free, love of God. As a devotion, it is in need of purification and renewal if it should be allowed to exist in an Orthodox environment."

Prior to Margaret Mary's popularization, devotion to the heart of Christ had a long, patristic history in the West, and drew from rich liturgical texts. Things changed with her though.

I am Western Orthodox, yes, but I do not utilize this devotion, though I'm not opposed to it. I think it can be a beautiful part of one's prayer life, I just haven't found the need for it in my own I suppose.

"Having just returned from the Antiochian Archdiocese convention, permit me to add this reply to Fr [...]:

"Men of goodwill will certainly disagree about the place of feasts that became universal after 1054; just as men of goodwill will also certainly disagree about the celebration of feasts which commemorate doctrines rather than events. In both instances, thoughtful arguments can be made. I think, however, it does a disservice to the main theme in Fr Patrick Henry Reardon's presentation to focus chiefly on his addendum concerning feasts which commemorate doctrines--whether these feasts are in the Western or Eastern Rites, and whether these feasts arise before or after 1054.

"The key to Fr Reardon's presentation was the liturgical implications of the post-Chalcedonian, Western emphasis on Christ as consubstantially human (as well as consubstantially divine) and its attendant emphasis on Christ as mediator. Frankly, that is not only the meat of his presentation but also a more astounding and breath-taking assertion.

"As for the addendum, Fr Reardon has consistently maintained that he not only has no problem with the devotions to the Sacred Heart, but himself maintains this devotion; and that his only objection to Corpus Christi, Christ the King, Sacred Heart and Trinity Sunday (all of which he sees as a piece in this critique) is not textual nor even rooted in the fact that they arise after a date admittedly contrived (for the sake of convenience) by historians, but that these feasts simply do not commemorate events. In a question concerning this issue, Fr Reardon admitted no problem with the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (promulgated in 1931) since he understands that it commemorates an event--the 3rd Ecumenical Council.

"Hoping this helps and asking your prayers, the unworthy priest,

Fr John W FentonAssistant to the Vicar General of the Western Rite VicariateAntiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America"

I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.

But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?

No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.

I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.

My main point, though, was that the Feast of the Prodigal Son is no more about Christ's telling of the parable (the real event) than these are about the events they are related to. The Kontakion for this feast says, "When I disobeyed in ignorance Thy fatherly glory, I wasted in iniquities the riches that Thou gavest me. Wherefore, I cry to Thee with the voice of the prodigal son, saying, I have sinned before Thee, O compassionate Father, receive me repentant, and make me as one of Thy hired servants."

Compare that with the Collect from Corpus Christ, "O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us the memorial of Thy Passion; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood as to experience continually within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."

Both feasts are loosely related to real events, though are not in and of themselves celebrations of those events.

I believe that to contemplate the love of God is a good thing; but if we do this then the best image to focus on for our devotions is the Cross. Or more especially the Christ "Extreme Humility" Icon. Or Christ the Bridegroom Icon.

That is what the Sacred Heart is about. It's a contemplation of the entire mystery of the Passion, culminating in the piercing of Christ's heart by the lance, from which issued water and blood, the "birth of the Church" as many, many Fathers put it.

Fr. Hughes: "The devotion to the Sacred Heart is rooted in intuitions of the early Church and even in the Old Testament. Fundamentally, it is a recollection of the sacrificial love of Christ as witnessed in His Incarnation, passion, and death. It includes also, the fullness of Divine love for mankind which is evidenced throughout the history of our race and is fulfilled in Christ's act for the salvation of man. The Biblical focus of all of this is the piercing of Jesus' side with a lance at the Crucifixion. Many Church Fathers see this as the symbolic origin of the Church as the New Eve from the side of the New Adam. Symbolic interpretation is also given in that as Christ suffered spiritually in His passion, this is symbolized by the physical wounding of his heart. Therefore, the act of piercing Christ's side represents all that he endured for his love of man, both physical and spiritual. "Truly, the wounds of the flesh showed forth the wounds of the spirit" (from the Office for the Feast of the Sacred Heart).

I believe one example might be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son? This was a parable, not a real event "in the course of salvation history" as Scamandrius put it.

But Our Lord telling the parable, which is the Gospel of that day, was a real event.

Could it not also be said, then, that Christ instituted the Eucharist (Corpus Christi) and His heart was really pierced on the cross (Sacred Heart), so these feasts also commemorate real events?

No. Christ instituted the Eucharist on Maudy Thursday and His heart was pierced on Great and Holy Friday. Corpus Christi (btw, I have heard of WRO celebrating, and I don't really have a problem with it) has little to do with the institution of the Eucharist, nor does the Sacred Heart have much to do with the Crucifixion. Corpus Christi has more to do with combating denial of the Real Presence in the West (a perennial problem), and the Sacred Heart with, of course, the visions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque.

I think you'll find, with the Sacred Heart, that it's not as simple as that, once you read through Fr. Hughes's article. Perhaps you'll still disagree, but I think you'll see why some defend it as a legitimate part of our Western patrimony.

My main point, though, was that the Feast of the Prodigal Son is no more about Christ's telling of the parable (the real event) than these are about the events they are related to. The Kontakion for this feast says, "When I disobeyed in ignorance Thy fatherly glory, I wasted in iniquities the riches that Thou gavest me. Wherefore, I cry to Thee with the voice of the prodigal son, saying, I have sinned before Thee, O compassionate Father, receive me repentant, and make me as one of Thy hired servants."

Compare that with the Collect from Corpus Christ, "O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us the memorial of Thy Passion; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood as to experience continually within ourselves the fruit of Thy Redemption. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."

Both feasts are loosely related to real events, though are not in and of themselves celebrations of those events.

I haven't read the article yet (I got it, but I also have the flu). Once I do I'll respond, Lord willing.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's what I thought, and why I presented other images which elicit from us a similar contemplation. It is also why I said that the image of the Sacred Heart, in comparison with an image of the Crucifixion (containing, as it does, the wound in the side of Christ), is just a little derivative. Everything is complete and whole in the image of Christ on the Cross: "the entire mystery of the Passion, culminating in the piercing of Christ's [side] by the lance, from which issued water and blood" plus the mourning of the Apostle John and the Mother of God, the confession of St Longinus, and the fulfilling of prophecy (c.a. the solar eclipse and blood-red moon).

On reading of the Sacred Heart, I read about the uniting of the "Sacred Heart [of Jesus]" with the "Immaculate Heart [of Mary]", the latter representing the Mother of God's sorrows. It made me smile because these two "concepts" are already united in the Icon of the Crucifixion: right next to Christ's suffering on the Cross is the mourning of the Mother of God. This is why I can't help thinking the Sacred Heart is derivative.

This is an altar piece from the 9th century A.D:

Really, what "extra" is taught by the Sacred Heart that is not already seen in this simple image of the crucifixion? Even the teaching of Christ's wound being "the birth of the Church" is shown by the blood and water being caught in the chalice.

We can contemplate the "whole picture" of the Crucifixion and wonder at the mystery of it. The Sacred Heart is a conceptualization of what is in the Crucifixion. As St Gregory of Nyssa said: "Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything."

I don't really see it as an either/or scenario, I suppose. Why could one not pray a purified Orthodox Sacred Heart devotion before this beautiful icon?

Well, I'm not sure what a "purified" version might involve

It might look something like this:

O Sacred Heart of Jesus! Living and life-giving fountain of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, glowing furnace of love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary. O my adorable and loving Saviour, consume my heart with that fire wherewith Thine is ever inflamed; pour from Thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine that my will may be conformed to Thine in all things. Amen.

O Most loving Lord Jesus, who dost invite me to give Thee my heart, and hast commanded me to love Thee with my whole soul; I most earnestly desire to do Thy will. For whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee. For Thee my heart and flesh faileth, Thou art the God of my strength and my portion for ever. Thou art the fount of all love; and Thy banner over me is love. Thou hast thought of me from all eternity; Thou hast created me, and redeemed me, and dost guard and keep me day by day. O most loving Lord, can it be that such wonderful love should not move me to such poor return as I can make Thee? Yes, Lord, I will love Thee, because Thou didst first love me. I will try to love Thee as Thou hast commanded, with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul, and with all my strength. I would that henceforth neither tribulation, nor distress, nor persecution, nor life, nor death, nor any created thing should separate me from Thee. Quench then by Thy Holy Spirit all love of the world and myself, enable me to bear Thy sweet yoke, that I may learn of Thee to be meek and lowly of heart. Make me to realize my own nothingness, that I may learn to esteem others better than myself. O meek and humble Heart of my Jesus! O Heart of love, teach me to love Thee now and through all eternity. Amen.

This was taken from the popular St. Ambrose Western Orthodox prayer book. The introduction to this devotion says, "The Western Orthodox use of this devotion is directed to the compassion of Jesus Christ, represented by His Sacred Heart. The devotion does parallel the Eastern Rite devotion found in The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, which has been popular among Eastern Christians for centuries. It is not a devotion to a specific physical organ and body part, anymore than when we say of ourselves, "My heart within me is troubled," by to Our Lord's compassionate love for us. The heart has long been taken to be the symbolic seat of love and the Heart of Jesus reveals the fundamental fact of Christianity that God loves us. Devotion to the Sacred Heart bestows a deeper insight into the Divine love and a surer confidence in it. As we see something of God's love, we shall want to make a return in terms of love and this devotion enables us to express the love of our own hearts."

Quote

, but there is already an Akathist to the Passion of Christ.

Right. There's "already" lots of things Orthodox Christians can use for their devotions. But the whole point of a Western expression is utilizing those elements that have come about in our Western experience that is consonant with the faith of the Fathers.

To the Lord Jesus Christ as to one person, as the God-man it is fitting to give a single inseparable

worship, both according to Divinity and according to Humanity, precisely because both

natures are inseparably united in Him. The decree of the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council

(the Ninth Canon against Heretics) reads: “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be

worshipped in His two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the

one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the Man… and does not

venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with His flesh, as the Holy Church

has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema” Eerdmans, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p.

314).

On the Latin cult of the “Heart of Jesus.”

In connection with this decree of the Council it may be seen how out of harmony with the

spirit and practice of the Church is the cult of the “sacred heart of Jesus” which has been introduced

into the Roman Catholic Church. Although the above-cited decree of the Fifth Ecumenical

Council touches only on the separate worship of the Divinity and the Humanity of the Saviour, it

still indirectly tells us that in general the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to

Him as a whole and not to parts of His Being; it must be one. Even if by “heart” we should understand

the Saviour’s love itself, still neither in the Old Testament nor in the New was there

ever a custom to worship separately the love of God, or His wisdom, His creative or providential

power, or His sanctity. All the more must one say this concerning the parts of His bodily nature.

There is something unnatural in the separation of the heart from the general bodily nature of the

Lord for the purpose of prayer, contrition and worship before Him. Even in the ordinary relationships

of life, no matter how much a man might be attached to another — for example, a mother

to a child — he would never refer his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer

it to the given person as a whole.

It's my understanding that this book is considered somewhat of a fundamentalist nature by many EO's and it's teachings would not be taken by them as dogmatic by any means. I can still understand why the Sacred Heart devotion would be considered controversial at best by many Orthodox (It was considered so by many Catholics until the 19Th century).

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.

Just because such images are present in a church does not mean they conform with Orthodox doctrine and theology. Many churches contain uncanonical images (such as God the Father as an old man, Christ Holy Wisdom as an androgynous winged angel, etc). This does not make them canonical.

That is a very wise point.

For your information, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky was the first hierarch of the ROCOR and I doubt very much that the ROCOR allows any priest in the WR under their jurisdiction to promote such crypto-Nestorian devotions such as the RC Sacred Heart.

The author cites St. Athanasius:St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."

The author cites St. Athanasius:St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."

Please, we had some images of that in our church, back home, and that's not because there were former Catholics there. It's just that for most people, that's still an image of Christ so they do not see what the big deal is.

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

The author cites St. Athanasius:St. Athanasius of Alexandria pointed out the wrongness of worshipping Christ's body in a separate way, in these words: "We do not worship a created thing, but the Master of created things, the Word of God made flesh. Although the flesh itself, considered separately, is a part of created things, yet it has become the body of God. We do not worship this body after having separated it from the Word. Likewise, we do not separate the Word from the body when we wish to worship Him. But knowing that "the Word was made flesh," we recognise the Word existing in the flesh as God." (Ep. ad Adelph., par.

His concluding remarks are:"Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners."

Fortunately, no one is worshipping any body parts of any one in the Sacred Heart devotion.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.